How do you feel about the War on Drugs?

[The Rabbi]

If people want to destroy themselves with drugs, that's their right- as long as they don't hurt anyone else while they're doing it.

Last time I say this:
1) There is no right to take drugs.
2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

 

[big inch]

1) There is no right to take drugs.

There is no right to eat fatty foods, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, pierce your eyebrows, skydive, bungy jump, etc... So, what's your point again?

2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

Many people who drive, practice medicine, enforce the law, play sports, etc...will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. So, what's your point again?

 

[Parallax]

Please explain how it hurts you if I smoke a little weed?

Freedom= being able to do or say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

You don't believe in freedom

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Do two people have a right to have a child?

Just curious on opinoins.....If government can regulate anything, then there could be a law passed with a minimum yearly wage for all potential parents.....

Drugs are a right just like having children.....No one has to ask can they have a child as it is their body.....Children (under 18 for this example) can not legally chose, as I have stated earlier, so legislation against minors drinking and taking drugs and having sex are completely legal....but not adults ...

If a person has a child they can't support, that child eventually becomes a state funded kid anyway in one way or another(government programs),period!

 

[Fredhead]

To " The Rabbi":
It is you, sir, who "lives in a vacuum".
You know someone who uses.
They won't tell you because they know
how you feel about such usage.
They are likely to be productive citizens,
perhaps even someone very close to you.

Prohibition failed then, and fails now.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

This is the last time I say this also.....

Simply because a right is not written down on paper, does not mean that right does not exist......By it's very nature a right is just that, something that you have by virtue of being sentient and able to perform it without infringing anothers rights, period........ I have a right to own a car and drive it,period....I don't have a right to drive it on public funded roads with out permission(ie license you can drive on priv. prop. with no license and undr 16). I have a right to smoke tobacco if I so desire.....I do not have a right to "light up" on a crowded flight to (anywhere)....I have a right to have children because I was born a man with functional genitalia......If there is no right to have children then judges need to order a few more vesectamys(sp? the clip clip) for guys that contiunue to have kids and not support the first ones If you can not see the common denominator in the above examples it is that they all can be done with ZERO harm to you or your rights.....or they can also be done while violating anothers rights.....What does that mean? It all goes back to responsibility/choices!!!! Choices people choices.......
Don't try to limit another persons choices simply because you don't agree with their position that infringes non of your liberty or rights all you have to do is not make that same choice....It is as simple as that.....

You have a right to commit suicide if you want to, just no right to take me with you

 

[DRZinn]

Doc, there is no right to take drugs. None. No Constitutional right, no natural right (whatever that is). None. At all. So get off it.
People's responsibilities include obeying the law and being productive members of society. How does becoming a drug addict aid that?

There's no such thing as a Constitutional right. The rights I have, I have by virtue of being a human being. Some of those are enumerated in the Constitution, some are not. Let me give a short class on what I have a right to do:

ANY DAMN THING I WANT TO DO THAT DOES NOT HARM ANYONE ELSE.

Clear enough? And my responsibilities do not include obeying any law that restricts any of my rights.

As for being a "productive member of society," I don't know what you mean by that. If you mean not being a drain on society, you're right. That's why that drug addict should be allowed to bleed to death in the street from the stump of his penis. You see, we can force an individual to be responsible for his actions.

Simple.

 

[Derby FALs]

Hear, Hear!

 

[The Rabbi]

There's no such thing as a Constitutional right. The rights I have, I have by virtue of being a human being. Some of those are enumerated in the Constitution, some are not

Doc,
You must have been asleep when Sindawe and I had this exact conversation. I was able to elicit that he had no idea what these rights were, where they came from, how he knew what they were or learned of their existence. His sole "proof" consisted of an assertion that he must be right and that I needed to trust him. You obviously come from the same school. So maybe you can answer the questions that Sindawe was unable to answer.

Further it is interesting that you maintain there is no such thing as a Constitutional right. What do you suppose the BOR is??

 

[thorn726]

2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

this is pure insanity.

someone else already said=
CARS -will in evitably hurt someone.

uh GUNS???
good, you just gave the antis more ammo.

Humans SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN FROM SPEAKING!!!
2) They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

should we get started on the manufacture of everyday products?
work????
no more=
lumberjacks
POLICE
firemen
no more metal, someone will get hurt melting/ welding it.

no bridges! someone will die in the building!!

NO MORE ELECTRICITY!!

They will inevitably hurt someone else by doing it. No one exists in a vacuum.

any electrical item you use, you might hurt someone.
the wires, the plants, someone is going to die!


i am always amazed by two things=
people who want to keep arms legal but think drugs should be illegal,
people who want drugs legal but arms illegal

until both are going to grant the other freedom to live as they please, neither will have what they want

 

[Art Eatman]

Rights come from the Creator; the Constitution and the first ten amendments are intended to protect those rights--and others not enumerated. The whole deal of the Constitution itself is to set up an orderly process for that protection.

Remember that the Federalists believed that The BOR wasn't needed, as the Constitution itself already protected those rights. The Anti-Federalists believed that enumeration of the more important rights was necessary in order to avoid abuse of power by the State, as stated in the Preamble to the BOR.

Art

 

[DRZinn]

maybe you can answer the questions that Sindawe was unable to answer.

May be.

What do you suppose the BOR is??

A partial enumeration of those rights that I have as a human being.

I was a little unclear when I said there is no such thing as a Constitutional Right. I meant that in terms of what most people, consciously or other wise, mean when they cite Constitutional Rights: those rights we have because they're in the Constitution. In other words, none. The Constitution is one of the greatest political documents ever written, but if it had never been written I would have exactly the same rights that I do now.

 

[Orthonym]

What You Said, Doc, or

Amen!

 

[Selfdfenz]

Doc Zinn, Too Many Choices, Parallex et al,

If the theory that people own and can do with their own bodies as they see fit is true...shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.

I seems that the self-instigated slavery option would pass the acid test of harming only the user, being done or not done strictly by decision of the individual selling him or herself, in theory, would not create a burden on society etc being applied to the drug issue. I'm not in favor of taxes but the transaction could be taxed.

What do you say? Free means free, or are there limits?

S-

 

[Gordon Fink]

ome people are just so darn stupid you have to protect them from themselves.

On that justification alone, I could wipe out three quarters of the worldwide human population and probably just be getting warmed up. No thank you.

~G. Fink

 

[Sindawe]

Doc, You must have been asleep when Sindawe and I had this exact conversation. I was able to elicit that he had no idea what these rights were, where they came from, how he knew what they were or learned of their existence. His sole "proof" consisted of an assertion that he must be right and that I needed to trust him. You obviously come from the same school. So maybe you can answer the questions that Sindawe was unable to answer.

No, you just did not like my answer. As I stated, I may do all that I judge to be in my own best interest, so long as I do not injure or harm another person, or infringe on their rights (to do the same(yes, that sould have been clarified earlier)). If you want a listed enumeration, we will be here until the stars go cold & dark. They are inate to our being, "...something that an individual can claim as due just by the nature of that individual's existence. Breathing is a right. Self-defense is a right. Worship is a right. The ability to come and go freely is a right, as is the right to peaceably assemble, to associate with whom you will. Thinking is a right. Education is a privilege." As to where I learned of them, that was from reading the writings and reasonings of men like Jefferson, Voltaire and Heinlein. The thing is Rabbi, you and I have a fundamentally different view of the world.

I think rights are granted by the ruling entity, whatever that is.

If they are granted by a ruling entity, that grant can be revoked. If they can be revoked, they are a temporary privilege. A temporary privilege is NOT a right.

If the theory that people own and can do with their own bodies as they see fit is true...shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.

Yep. All free men are able to voluntarily enter into a binding contract with another. If the terms of such contract include a lifetime of servitude and absolute obedience to the other party, it is a foolish thing to do, but still they are still free to so. Just as all free men are able to stick their heads in the jaws of crocodiles if it pleases them.

 

[DRZinn]

shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.

Why not? It'd be monumentally stupid, but still their choice to make.

 

[Firethorn]

Don't forget that slavery has had multiple meanings down through the ages. Heck, you had serfdom, which was more oppresive than some earlier forms of slavery.

Now one of the more traditional forms of slavery involves your kids being considered property too. For one thing that's right out.

Today, it really wouldn't be considered slavery, you'd be signing to an extensive, transferable contract with severe breakage or buyout penalties.

Think about long-term contracts, non-compitition agreements, enlistments, etc...

And eventually, the fact that today 'slaves' are generally not the best workers, so you actually get more work & value out of a free worker.

 

[Parallax]

shouldn’t all free men be able to sell themselves into slavery.

Yes.

 

[Werewolf]

The Anti-Federalists believed that enumeration of the more important rights was necessary in order to avoid abuse of power by the State, as stated in the Preamble to the BOR.

Hmmmmp...

It appears on the face of it that current history has proven the Anti-Federalists correct in their evaluation of the potential for abuse of power by the State.

Lucky for us that they prevailed - to some extent anyway.

To Rabbi who asked what the BOR's was:

It's a list of rights that the government is bound to protect and not infringe. The 9th or 10th amendment (I forget which one) specifically states that the list is not complete and that just because a right isn't mentioned in the previous 8 doesn't mean that the right does not exist. Pretty simple concept actually. To understand it all one must do is actually read the Bill of Rights.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Many people have been brainwashed.....

As has been stated many times over in this thread now, to "enumarate" all the rights held by the people would fill a "Library of Congress" , wall to wall ceiling to floor with cd-roms........ I have a right to buy whatever I can afford and government should not try to use taxing to regulate items from the public......ie...cigarettes, ammo, alcohol, or anything else seen as "disturbing" to the masses......

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I hate how we go round 'n round on this topic.

Here's a summary of my thinking on this issue.

1. Our society has determined that alcohol prohibition was a failure, and that legalized alcohol sale and use is OK. This means that as a society, we've determined that 76,000 alcohol-attributable deaths and 2.3 million years of potential life lost due to alcohol per year is preferable to the harms associated with prohibition.
2. Nicotine is also allowed for public sale and consumption. We, as a society, have decided that 430,000 tobacco-related deaths per year is better than the alternative (banning, and the resulting black market and gang warfare associated with such a lucrative black market).
3. IIRC, Air Force pilots are handed methamphetamines for long missions, without a prescription, without doctor supervision. It's a performance enhancer, and it's apparently good enough for Uncle Sam.
4. When drugs like cocaine were still legal, we didn't see the social harms we're seeing today. Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine (hence the name), for instance. The harms most people are mentioning seem to me to be results of the drug war, not a justification for it. Drug-related crime exists because the product is so expensive -- a direct result of prohibition. In fact, it looks like 10-17% of crime might disappear if drugs were legalized because users wouldn't need to commit crimes in order to afford their fix. In 1996, 22% of inmates were in for drug crimes, at something like $30k per year each. Some numbers I found in a quick Google search tag the costs of the drug war from 1992-2000 at over a trillion dollars. That's almost $15,000 per household in the US.

With regard to the success of prohibition, here's a quote from Mark Thornton:

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became 'organized'; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.

Is it really that hard to believe we'd see the same changes if we legalized drugs? Wouldn't that be better than the current situation, where we've got the worst of both worlds? I've really got to question whether we'd see people huffing paint and gasoline (with a measurable decrease in IQ with each use) if marijuana were available from Phillip Morris at even three times the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Crack is sold because it's more profitable than powdered cocaine -- would anyone choose to smoke a mixture of crack and God-knows-what if they could purchase the powder for even 10 times the cost of flour? Heroin has been mentioned here -- I thought the desires of heroin users were to shoot up and sit immobile for hours listening to music - -where's the harm to society? Wouldn't the harm go down if opiates were commercially available to users? What if we just legalized the growing of opium-producing poppies, or made methodone something you could get in the drug store?

It's hard to argue that the current system is anything other than an expensive failure that's destroying the rights of all Americans. We need to do something differently, and IMHO any course of action needs to cause less harm than simple legalization. I don't know that anyone has come up with such a solution, so count me in among the "legalize it" crowd. Moral arguments aside, it's the only rational choice.

 

[publius]

For those who fail to see a drug law/gun law connection

The two are absolutely connected, as they have been for some time.

They share the same federal legislative history, both having been born as a tax, since that was a convenient route around the Constitution. Later, the Constitution grew, as living documents are prone to do, so that today, both federal drug laws and federal gun laws are based on the interstate commerce clause. There are two Supreme Court cases about it right now, the Raich case (is a homegrown pot plant for personal consumption interstate commerce?) and the Stewart case (is a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption interstate commerce?).

If you believe that the connection between the two is some Libertarian fantasy, maybe you could explain how Libertarians have infested the Bush Justice Department, which wrote a cert petition in the Stewart case asking the court to hold off hearing their case until Raich is decided because the two cases are about the same issue.

More here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=53941
and here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=110380

 

[fallingblock]

Well Derek, actually yes.....

"I've really got to question whether we'd see people huffing paint and gasoline (with a measurable decrease in IQ with each use) if marijuana were available from Phillip Morris at even three times the cost of a pack of cigarettes."
*********************************************************

That's certainly the case here in Central Australia. Petrol is even used by some Aboriginals to "quieten down" their unruly children. Of course, there are plenty of alcohol-related incidents as well, but some folks just seem to like the "slap" that accompanies petrol-sniffing.


*********************************************************
"Crack is sold because it's more profitable than powdered cocaine -- would anyone choose to smoke a mixture of crack and God-knows-what if they could purchase the powder for even 10 times the cost of flour? Heroin has been mentioned here -- I thought the desires of heroin users were to shoot up and sit immobile for hours listening to music - -where's the harm to society?"
*********************************************************

What's the harm of drug-affected driving while listening to their music?
Simply that the drug-user's judgement is impaired and 'normal' behavioral
clues are no longer guiding their actions.

This is a result of consuming a substance deliberately for the escape from reality. It's not a good idea for those in the society around the escapee.


*********************************************************
"Wouldn't the harm go down if opiates were commercially available to users? What if we just legalized the growing of opium-producing poppies, or made methodone something you could get in the drug store?"
*********************************************************



Would the incidence of opiate-influenced accidents/deaths rise?
What about those non-substance abusers affected by the user's actions?



*********************************************************
"It's hard to argue that the current system is anything other than an expensive failure that's destroying the rights of all Americans."
*********************************************************


No argument from me there!


*********************************************************
"We need to do something differently, and IMHO any course of action needs to cause less harm than simple legalization."
*********************************************************

LESS harm than simple legalization is a good idea, alright.


*********************************************************
"I don't know that anyone has come up with such a solution, so count me in among the "legalize it" crowd. Moral arguments aside, it's the only rational choice."
*********************************************************


We'll disagree there. I don't think it's at all that simple.


publius:
*********************************************************
"The two are absolutely connected, as they have been for some time."
*********************************************************

Your attempt to link the two issues is based merely upon the similarity of the Federal Government's approach to control.

The difference between possession/use:

of an inert object responding to the command of the user-

of a substance ingested by a user seeking physical and/or psychological effect, to include diminished responsibility-

remains clear-cut.

Especially with respect to the effect upon the greater society involved.

The contention that there is a serious parallel between lawful firearms ownership (RKBA) and the mythical 'right' to recreational use of psychotropic drugs (and reduction of individual responsibility) is indeed a libertarian fantasy.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

What's the harm of drug-affected driving while listening to their music?
Simply that the drug-user's judgement is impaired and 'normal' behavioral
clues are no longer guiding their actions.

This is a result of consuming a substance deliberately for the escape from reality. It's not a good idea for those in the society around the escapee.

That'd be a compelling argument, if we weren't already seeing more than 17,000 drunk driving related deaths yearly (you can find newer stats if you look, I'm sure). If those drivers had been smoking marijuana, I doubt they'd have had their judgement impaired in the same way.

You're making an argument for prohibition; please see my previous post. I don't want anyone who's functioning at a less than normal level driving (there are already too many frightening drivers anyway), but let's not pretend that the harms you're talking about are already happening under our current system. It turns out that alcohol seems to make for the most dangerous drivers...

What about those non-substance abusers affected by the user's actions?

Oh, you mean those that are already affected under the current system?